illegal criminals will be removed. and then the use of capital punishment >> president obama released to executive own -- orders related the washingtonp. post is reporting that the white house responded to the supreme court yesterday. a group of colorado does not need protection from the affordable care act protection on contraception's. they can be exempted. good morning. that on new heard year's eve, a federal judge overturned the law in florida that required those applying for

federal health care benefits to be tested for drugs. for our first 45 minutes, talk about the details of the case. we want to gain your thoughts on the topic. here's how you can reach out to us on the phones. the numbers are on your screen. on our social media channel, you can reach us on twitter, facebook, or e-mail. as far as the polling, we posted a question must night. there is responded this morning. for those taking it, 75% say that yes, people should be tested. no,t 594 people said

welfare recipients should not be drug tested. you can leave comments and participate in the polls if you want. join the conversation there. make your thoughts known on twitter. if you want to give your thoughts and comments on the phone, please use the numbers provided. a little bit about this case. the decision was made on new year's eve. here is the reuters writeup grid the judge struck down the law requiring drug screening for welfare recipients. he says it by leaps it be constitutional protections. rick scott campaigned on a promise to expand this and said he would appeal. the law requires parents to

undergo testing and apply for assistance. federal programs help to support people with children and pay for shelter. to $45ting fee of $25 must be repaid by the states if the test comes back negative. they will be barred from receiving benefits for a year. the numbers are on your screen if you want to make your thoughts known. there are other states looking at the decision as well. should welfare recipients the drug tested? jeff from hawaii is up on the independent line. can solve aink we lot of problems. people can get professional help. by all means. host: as far as the decision by florida, what do you think about

those matters? host: -- caller: i do not think it is unreasonable. they are asking for help. sometimes they do not know what that is. if it will help them feel better, that is a blessing. host: here is brian from columbus, ohio. republican. i think they should be drug tested. they get pay raises for every kid that they have. they get more and more money. i'm getting tired of 10 kid households. they do not need my house -- help her it -- they do not need my help. see more thano that. host: we will hear from terry next. hagerstown, maryland. caller: good morning.

my comment is short and sweet. i had to pass a drug test to secure employment that pays me. i do not see why the people getting the benefits should not also have to pass a drug test. host: do you know how your state deals with the issue? caller: i live in a liberal mecca of maryland. martin o'malley is running for president. he just wants to get as many people signed up on a handout to give the government -- that is a typical platform for democrats. i do not think they're held accountable. thank you. host: from the story that was from reuters, it says that rick scott and other supporters argued that welfare recipients need to be drug free to prepare them for jobs. they say the businesses had required set chest for years. for years.such tests

is saying that we should have a zero-tolerance policy for illegal drug use and families. especially families that struggle to make ends meet and need assistance to provide for their children. here is sam. st. paul, minnesota. independent line. caller: i am willing to bet that the majority of people who call up and say that they should be tested are republicans. i am not a republican. these are the people that yell the most about enforcing the constitution. i am a former constitutional lawyer. i am not in favor of criminals. i have been a victim of criminal behavior myself. i have reason not to be in favor of criminals. the idea that the government will search people with no basis for criminal activity -- that is what they are doing. the government is not the same as private industry. there is no right to push

privacy. that is exactly what we just found out about the nsa. there are no secrets. people have a right to privacy. if and when they need to go to work, they need to let the employers do it. if there's a law saying that thatfound drugs, i think they should consider their privileges. as a condition, who do we think that we are? who are we to make that decision? for all of the people who cry about the constitution, take it out and read it sometime. try to understand it. it says we have a right to privacy. host: bob from mount pleasant, michigan. democrat line. caller: i agree with the caller. this is absurd.

it is because they are poor. it makes no sense. why don't they drug test college kids who get scholarships? absolutely not. they only do that because people are poor. it is policy when you start talking about testing people for drugs. it is a stereotype that if you're on welfare, your black. it is ok to test them. we know that those laws are racist. the fact is that we have many blacks who are arrested for marijuana while whites walk free. it is a racist law. rick scott is a racist. this is absolutely absurd. host: what do you think about the argument that the caller made that he was making the analogy that if you go for a job interview, you might be drug tested as well. caller: i agree with the

attorney who just spoke. that is private enterprise. i don't think they should do it either, but the fact is that that is private enterprise. the government should not be searching people illegally. host: california is on the republican line. here's tom. caller: i just want to say, as a republican, i think that this is a really disgraceful action. the federal judge was totally right to overturn what florida did. this is a public detriment. patriotism is being called into question. you cannot exclude american citizens from public welfare. they are entitled to those benefits. they are a citizen of this country. it is called patriotism. the idea that you can say they drugs,r or they are on us we have to test them and

exclude them from the rightful claim to benefits is outrageous. it is disgraceful. i cannot believe you got this far. i applaud the federal judge. they put out a response on when the decision was made on tuesday. they said that they affirm that the fourth amendment protects everyone. the florida justice institute says the requiring drug testing is a slippery slope. a line must be drawn, and the court did so today. bill, you are up next. rhode island on the independent line. caller: good morning. i believe that they should be tested. i also believe that anybody who is paid to taxpayers money

should be tested too. officers, they should all be tested. host: as far as the recipients themselves, why should they be tested? caller: they are receiving taxpayer money. wholieve that anybody receives that should be tested. host: what about the argument you heard from a previous caller as far as violation of perything -- riotously -- rivacy? caller: it is likely for job. if you go for a job, you are tested. if you get money, you should be tested. host: that is built from rhode island. you may be joining us. there was a case in florida just before new year's eve. it was on new year's day. they're looking at a law

requiring those applying for welfare assistance to be drug tested. other states are looking at it as well. we asked the question of you about welfare benefits. should those recipients be drug tested? you have heard a sampling, but you can contribute as well. there are the phone lines. you can also use twitter or facebook. you can participate in polls or leave your comments as well. here is staten island, new york. democratic line. say, why just want to don't we test these politicians who were making these policies?

they should be the ones being tested. this is outrageous. you want to waste money paying these corporations to drug test people who have no suspicion of drug use. somebody has fallen upon hard times. does that mean that they have to be unreasonably searched? like they are using drugs? we should drug test the congress and the florida state legislature. let's see how many positive test suite can get with these bodies. that is all i have to say. host: sally from florida. republican mine. caller: good morning. i would just like to say that i think that everybody on welfare should be drug tested. this is their form of employment. if they think that they should should look at the babies who are born from crack mothers. i have a friend who is a nurse. she sees these crack babies come in.

ifse mothers are tested -- they could not get welfare, they might get a job. they make it on birth control. these crack babies are really struggling. anybody who thinks that this is a racial issue, is really mistaken. just blacks are not on welfare. definitely, there should be drug testing. tank you very much. host: taking a look at the nsa spying program. the chicago tribune says that there is a change in the program. obama is preparing intelligence reform based on the recommendations that examine u.s. security programs. ae area of debate includes proposal to require a federal judge to approve each national

security letter. these are used to secretly compel private customer records by internet providers and other groups. a similar story in the los angeles times. the intelligent system may be reformed. they say that mr. obama has not made his own position clear. each time the government seeks third-party record, there has been pushed back. some top white house advisers say there is concern that this is more cumbersome to investigate terrorists. katrina is calling from california. thank you for calling. caller: hello. good morning. i do not think any adult should be drug tested. theys they are in rehab or

are parents with children under 18. it is outrageous. these people call up and talk about welfare like it is a billion heirs salary -- billionarire's salary. people who were cap to get drug tested. what you do on your day off is your own business. i do not think that people realize that you have to urinate for the government. i would nominate speaker boehner to do the drug testing himself. page reflectsbook ace light edging for people who think that welfare recipients should be drug tested. 681 people say yes, 602 people say no. wanda is calling from michigan. democratic line.

caller: hello. i agree with most of the people who are saying that welfare people should not be tested. if you're going to test welfare people, you need to test the government. host: why not specifically test them? caller: why do you have to test some? you have no right to test them. they're getting welfare money, tax money, from the president on down. they're getting money from the government too. let's start at the top instead of the bottom. host: mike from ohio. republican mine. caller: i agree that they should be tested. i support the constitutional lawyer. you should look back and see what is going on. look for drivers licenses. i am required by the government to take a drug test randomly. -- ialso not only that

have to renew my license and be fingerprinted by the f ei -- fbi to haul hazardous materials. i have driven a truck for 30 years. i have to do this every four years and pay for it myself. the government is getting out of control in a lot of respects. people getting so much free money, they should be tested. host: what about the argument that you made about this being a constitutional issue? you do that willingly as the desire to get a job. caller: it is not that i have to do it willingly. the employer makes a choice. if the government mandates that, then the employer doesn't. that is the difference. host: this is the front page of the washington post. taking a look at falluja. the fighting in iraq. an al qaeda group has seized falluja.

the battle for iraqi city in 2004, militants linked to terrorist network enter towns. the is the front page of washington post this morning. there's also a follow up taking a look at some of the politics behind in the los angeles times. it hinders al qaeda fights. they write that the iraqi government has rushed to reinforce the region. more than 8000 iraqis died in fighting last year. it is the bloodiest year since 2008. haltedernment recently u.s. surveillance by un-armstrongs. in the last paragraph, some current and former u.s. officials say they believe that the white house is still weighing how deeply it wants to be involved. here is margaret.

gastonia, north carolina. caller: hello. i think that they should be tested. if you are not -- host: go ahead. caller: unless you are dealing with recipients from the ground up, you do not understand what they are doing with their money. i have dealt with them from the ground up. retired, ibefore i saw them get their money. they were broke tomorrow. i think they should be tested. i was tested to keep my job. they should be tested. a lot of them use their money to get drugs. they should be. host: ivan from hixson, tennessee. democratic line. caller: i do not think anybody

should be tested. if you listen to what these people are saying, you can listen to rachel maddow. arepeople down in the south the ones trying to get this law through. everybody knows down there in the south is a welfare state. those people down there in the south, like people say, they vote against their interests. they're just crazy. it is crazy in the cell. these people down here hate anybody that is not white. thank you. host: in the business section of the wall street journal, a story about lenders. especially big banks. the lenders keep on growing. they write that the banking units of specific banks, including j.p. morgan chase and bank of america and wells fargo held $6.46 trillion in assets.

that is according to a report from thursday. the banking industry is comprised of midsized, regional, and smaller players. they have $8.15 trillion. that is in the wall street journal. mike in orange city, florida. republican mine. caller: hello. i believe that they should be tested. i am a firefighter working for nasa. they make us drug test. we keep our jobs. if you want to have your handout, you should be drug tested. host: how has this played out in florida? that is where this was first heard. how has it played out there? caller: you hear everybody crying about it. they are to make a racial thing. it always comes down to being a racial thing. they're trying to go after the

right things. to me, if you have your handout, and you want to take free money, then you should be drug tested. host: some people have made it a constitutional thing. caller: i don't see how they can make a constitutional thing. i got a drug test to keep my job. you want to take money from the government. i work for the government. i had a drug test. i think all politicians should be drug tested too. they work for the government and they want to make laws. people on welfare should be drug tested. host: here is grace from long beach, new york. independent mind. caller: hello. my thing is i have a thyroid condition. once a month, i have to be tested. $200.ts if you do it for all of these

people, let's say half of them are not on anything. that is money wasted. you still have a congressman who was on drugs. nothing was done. he is still there. not everybody on welfare is on drugs. people need to realize that. if you do not want to help your brother, do not help them. do not make up excuses. host: abortion is the topic on the new york times. taking a look at access on the state level. eric is writing that on monday, there will be a clash that will reach the supreme court. new orleans will hear an argument on a texas requirement that abortion doctors have admitting privileges at local hospitals. that cost one third of the abortion clinic in the state to close. the director of the center for gender law at columbia says we

are at a turning point. abortion will be dramatically restricted or pushback will begin. appeal forwide antiabortion groups. twila of kentucky. democratic line. caller: i believe that they should be tested. everybody should be tested. from my congressman and senator, i live in kentucky. i have a state that has been a part of a state that is not very racially diverse. the majority of people that are here on welfare are white. the laws will affect them. they should be tested. host: why test the recipient? caller: why? i work. i am tested.

i think everyone should. they are asking for help from the government. i have a brother in the military. he has to be drug tested. why shouldn't these people who were taxing our government? my niece is married to a drug addict. she was on welfare. a is buying drugs with welfare check and the kids do without. and also raises the question, what happens to these children when the parents get drugs? does the government step in and remove the children from the home? it is the big question. it is a very tough one. host: the wall street journal takes a look at statements made by ben bernanke. the last speech that he gives before leaving the federal reserve. you may have seen a little bit this morning.

says that hetory steps down from the central bank at the end of the month, and presented a cautiously optimistic outlook for growth. they have curbed growth in recent years. that drive will diminish this here. here's a little bit more of the statement from yesterday's speech. caller: the encouraging news is that the headwinds may now be abating. near-term fiscal policy remains restrictive. the degree of restraint on economic growth seems likely to lessen somewhat in 2014. even more so in 2015. meanwhile, the budgetary -- situation has improved. the aftereffects of the housing bust also appear to have waned. notwithstanding the effects of higher mortgage rates, housing prices have rebounded. one consequence is the number of homer -- homeowners underwater mortgages have dropped.

household balance sheet have strengthened considerably. wealth and income is rising. result, lending standards to households are showing signs of easing. we still face impediments. businesses, especially larger ones, are also in good shape. the combination of financial healing and greater pal -- balance, less fiscal restraint, and continued monitoring, bodes well for economic growth. see the you want to whole speech, go to our website. type in the ben bernanke in the video library. you can see the speech in its entirety. the robert wood foundation did a study back in 2007 that took a look at substance abuse and welfare.

they put some highlights of their key findings together. back then, they found that 20% of recipients reported having used illicit drugs once in the last year. five percent reported substance abuse or dependence. reported abusers incidences of domestic violence. there were increased to rations of -- they were more likely to have been in treatment, compared with non-standard recipients. the findings of the robert wood foundation in 2007. should welfare recipients be drug tested? this stems from a case in florida. thomas from las vegas, nevada. good morning. caller: i think that they should be jet tested. the main reason is, how will they find a job if they cannot

pass a drug test to get a job? if they cannot get a job, why should they collect assistance? the whole point is so they can help themselves. thank you very much. the paper in florida put out an editorial taking a look at this issue. some of the thoughts that they make is that the record is, for instance, drug test all employees. our drugs being program is will one that is based on suspicion. do not think that everyone is suspicious. supporters of the drug testing program argue that welfare recipients need to be drug free to enter the workforce. they will most likely be tested anyway. they say the drug use intentionally threatens the welfare of children. that is where most of the eight is targeted. most of these -- both of these arguments make sense. joshua from amsterdam, ohio. republican line. caller: if you're going to make

a lot of money for the people who are craving these drug test kits, then you make a lot of money for the people who are creating drug test kits from the drugs. i don't pity people that i work -- i know many people that i work with take pills to pass these tests. if you are on welfare and they call you come down, you will take something to stop them from testing the drugs. the drug testing kit company and the people who make the kits to pass those on the drugs -- i have seen this over and over. host: as far as the idea of testing overall? caller: it is a big joke. people carry these kits. you're making money for those people and companies. that is the biggest problem. there are a lot of people on drugs. these companies think they are drug-free companies. they are not drug-free.

they have these kits on them. they carried him around. host: sugar grove, north carolina. and on the independent line. caller: good morning. cash i that this whole a think that this whole topic --i think that this whole topic calls for a two-tier testing system. one for the rich and one for the poor. case in point, down in florida. he has somen, money, he was able to get away with buying cocaine in d.c. apparently that is a misdemeanor. he says he's going to rehab. say don'tble to arrest me, dr. mandel? -- don't throw me in jail? i agree that we should start testing our congressmen. our taxpayers pay their salary.

host: the auto industry is getting some highlights this morning. talking about sales for december. sales for general motors or six percent down on december 2012. ford's sales were up only two percent and toyota decreased 1.7%. the numbers for the whole year looked to be about eight percent above 2012. there is no adjusted rate of sales around $15 million. sales of chrysler's ram pickup truck were up. there were also increases on other except trucks as well. acadia was up and that but the gloomy trend. that is the story from the auto industry. tennessee on the democratic line. caller: hi, how are you?

that peoplenk should be drug tested. getting on welfare is hard enough. a department of human services office and say you need help. you have to jump through hoops. you have to fill out forms. you have to prove that you are down and out. that alone is humiliating. say to people that you have to take a drug test. for everybody who is not on drugs, that is a slap in the face. they have to do something because some idiots are out there doing the wrong thing and taking advantage of the system. there are so many people who are

not taking advantage of the system who really need the help. there really down and out. those are the people who are not asking for a handout. they are just saying that they need help to get back on their feet and find a job. people who are out there working every day do not get that. they have a job. they are paying taxes. they can complain. the people who are sitting here not having a job, they are down and out. it is hard. host: some of those people are saying i have a job and i have to get drug tested. why not do the same for those receiving help from taxpayers? caller: when i was working, i am now retired -- when i was working, there were all kinds of jobs that required you to take a drug test. it is not a mandatory state thing. it is generally company by company.

if your company says -- if you're working in a warehouse that is manufacturing cars, they do not want somebody in there on drugs. they could get horror. -- hurt. they could be killed. things like that do happen. you could be seriously injured. stairsld fall off of that you are on. anything could happen. to tell them that they have to take this, i do not think that is right. senatorsongressmen and take a drug test. make sure that they are clean. i think that would be a wonderful idea. host: the president is on a vacation. still releasing two executive orders with gun control issues. the latest action, according to the new york times, the

department of justice is proposing to clarify that admission to a mental institution involves inpatient and outpatient commitment. they will determine what information should be accessible. the people who under federal law should be prohibited from owning a gun for mental health. victor is up next in silver spring, maryland. republican line. caller: i cannot go along with the last two colors. let congress and federal workers be tested for drugs. especially he reread. he has been smoking something for years. i had to take a drug test one time. during my hippie era, when i had my long hair, i talked about drugs and sing songs about drugs.

the nurse at work thought i was on drugs. she made me do a drug test. i came up clean. host: what to think about the florida decision? caller: go for it. the file with the judge says. if obama can defy what certain laws he does not like, then the florida people can go ahead and do it anyway. host: the front page of the washington post takes a look at emergency health bills going through the maryland state senate. it says the lawmakers are expected to pass legislation next week to let hundreds of people try to find -- sign up for the health insurance through the new exchange program. martin o'malley and the lieutenant governor have said that they will introduce the legislation that will expand enrollment in health insurance plan. a separate state run program covers high-risk individuals. they would have to pay a premium determined by income.

they would be allowed to stay on the plan for only a few months. this is the last call. it is elizabeth from columbus, georgia. independent line. caller: hello. how are you? host: i'm fine. what do you think about the decision in florida? caller: i think that getting people tested for drugs is a bad idea. those things are costly. they are probably on a temporarily. in between jobs. it's just another cost for us. host: one more story on affordable care act. this is the washington post. robert barnes is saying that the injunction that was sought in the case of a colorado none has been heard from the supreme court. nonprofit organizations like the nuns may opt out of the requirement by certifying that they have religious objections.

with a stroke of their own pen, they can secure for themselves the relief that they seek from the court. anthony --ording to donald verrilli. they are blind to the religious issue. they cannot deputize a third-party to sin on their behalf. they say that no appeals court has ruled on the argument. r could rollmayo herself. the president will return from vacation. we will talk about the state of the union and other issues on the 2014 agenda. to talk about that agenda, our next as she -- just will join us paulr next guest,

brandus, will join us. we will discuss numbers with george washington university. we want to talk to you about our book tv channel. bellingham, washington is being focused on this week. they will feature the history and literary life of knowing him, washington. today at noon, we will present all of our literary offerings. including the bookbinding and letterpress shop where kevin nelson shows us a vintage letterpress machine. >> this is, before the heidelberg existed, there were these letter presses. they started building these. the original was built by a guy named gordon. he had a dream. he said that ben franklin came to him in a dream. she told him how to construct a

press. he started working on it and created it. it revolutionized the printing industry. before this press existed, all letter presses were just printing one print permanent. per minute. it was a long process. this press changed everything. he went from one per minute to 12 or 16. i can sure you have this works. in 1918, the original motor still runs great. jobs. it for most when they are done, they will be die cut or stored. at 3000 pounds, it really is

bill for what it needs to do. built to last forever. >> 10 or 15 years ago, we started looking at the census department data. something very strange pops out. when you look at where the profits are, multilateral, when you look at a map come a see germany, france, ireland, italy. datau look at the italy -- on where the profits are, there is this hugely disproportionate amount of profit and ireland. that was one indication that something was going on. >> more with the chief economist , a globalalysts provider of tax news and analysis. sunday night at 8:00. >> "washington journal"

continues. host: joining us now is paul brandus. we're talking about inside the obama white house. welcome. west wing reports -- what is it? caller: -- guest: it is a white house-based news service. i had been at nbc for a long time. i cashed out of that in 2007. i came back to washington. i was not sure what to do. with apologies to hillary clinton, i went on a listening tour and talked to a bunch of people. i had been in and out of the white house with nbc. i decided this was a good time to start up my own shop. i started with twitter. i saw it as being a disruptive platform. now look at it. i distributed content there. i have a wide friday of clients.

it is really just a little bit of everything. host: people have perceptions of those like yourself. you hear what is going on. what is the perception of what you do and what is the reality of the day today reporting on the white house? is an aura and mystique about working in the white house that is always interesting. i have a simple philosophy. i try to bring the white house to people. you can't just walk in there. it is really a privilege to go in every day. you do not see the president every day. you do not get too close to him. you go to briefings and talk with officials in the cut of thing. it is really interesting to remember that on twitter, i talked to thousands of people per day. i never want to talk down to people. thatt them to understand what the president is, you respect the presidency. your beer the president the -- you revere the presidency.

you question him whenever you can. he is not an emperor or king, he is just a politician. he is answerable to us. that is the philosophy that i take to everyday. host: what do you think the questions will be like for the president moving forward? guest: he had a very tough year poll wise. 52% orn the year with so. he lost about 10 points during the year. a lot of that was self-inflicted damage. all of these candles or alleged scandals. watchedt of it was this -- botched rollout of obamacare. that seems to be getting better. that being said, it was a poor year for him. except for this. all of these scandals happened against a backdrop of improving the economy. that has escaped the attention

of a lot of folks. fell to seven percent. of thisthe backdrop improving economy, people tend to focus more on the scandals and issues. that is the way washington works. there's drama of who is up and who is down. there are a lot of things going on. i think that he lost control and he should've focused more on pounding home the fact that the economy is getting better. look at this. that is what he talked about. nobody is paying attention to that. i think that will pay a big role in 2013. the improving economy will be a big part. they will try to turn that around. host: so as far as 2014, the state of the union will be a chance to regain the narrative? what is expected?

guest: he did not get much through last year. now that this is an election year, i do not think we should hold our breath. big things are going to happen. he has a much more narrow agenda. probably immigration is at the top of the list. the debt ceiling has to be addressed. late february, early march -- those will probably be a couple of things that he will focus on. yesterday, these executive actions on gun control. those kind of things. the big thing for him is that he will go around the congress as much as he can. even though john boehner appears to be taking on the tea party. that is another interesting story. i still would not hold my breath. certainly not an election year. -- paulul brandon of

brandus is our guest. if you want to ask any questions, you can call the numbers on your screen. you can send us e-mail or tweet us as well. paul, to your point about relations with congress, there is a story in the wall street journal saying that the priority will face an early test in congress. that goes to the part of the relations that he has with congress. guest: or lack of relations. i think that the president understands that he is about to enter his sixth year in office. very little is going to get done with these republicans. particularly with the expectation that in a midterm election, republicans will pick up a couple of seats in the house.

they could pick up a couple of seats. i think they need six seats in the senate to win control. they might gain those six seats. i think they could easily gain four or five. they are very close to taking back the senate. there is a reasonable possibility that come january, republicans could control both chambers of congress. we hear this talk about obama being a lame duck trade republicans will have that duck squawking. there's less incentive for republicans to cooperate this year. from an electoral standpoint, not to work in the president's favor, everybody understands that. they will hunker down and wait for november to see what happens. there is a very real possibility that they could control both chambers. very little reason to cooperate. host: the wall street journal reports that he has hired a

former aide to chuck schumer as the legislative affairs director. guest: both sides are hunkering down and waiting for november. there's nothing more to it than that. host: the first call is elizabeth, new haven, connecticut. she is on the democratic line. caller: can i ask my question? job is tonalist's report on the major fact around major events. overwhelming scientific evidence has already proven that there was a controlled demolition on 9/11 and building experts are demanding a new investigation, why are you doing more to shine a light on this issue? host: -- guest: why am i not doing more about september 11?

host: there is an organized campaign for these questions. you can respond if you wish. ofst: i cover the president the united states, not conspiracy theories. we will leave it at that. host: thank you for all done. scott lance, new jersey. republican line. caller: hello. i am from scotch plains, new jersey. which part of the republican party will prevail in the midterm elections this year? host: when you say which part, can you expand on that? caller: the tea party or the establishment? guest: that is a good question. were it not for some poor choices that the tea party made in terms of senate candidates, they very well might have controlled the senate now. they have places like delaware in indiana and nevada. in one sense, the tea party has

been repudiated to a certain extent. theythat in mind, i think will have to be a lot more careful about their selection of candidates. we talked about this up front. john boehner is now taking on the tea party. more mainstream republicans will probably support boehner in that effort. the tea party evolution from 2010 -- they rode into power on the basis of what was perceived as out of control government spending. the deficit is down by about 40%. a lot of steam has been taken out of the tea party sales. to make a long story short, i think that what you say is the establishment will probably be better. host: how would you gain -- gauge john boehner strength? guest: he has made some tactical

mistakes over the past couple of years. i think he understands that count how it did to the cash i think he understands that kowtowing to the tea party has not worked. that is what he is going to do. there will be a much stronger, more vigorous speaker. he is not afraid to say no to the tea party folks. host: james from fort lauderdale, florida. independent line. caller: i am calling from florida. theuestion is, how come congress has not passed the jobs yet? why haven't they proposed a jobs bill at all? that is my question. guest: there have been all kinds of jobs bills that have been proposed on both sides. they have become political tools for both sides. for example, the senate will

pass legislation that does not get through to the house. the house has proposed all caps of jobs. -- all kinds of jobs. it is inexcusable both sides to blame the other. it is not a lack of activity. it is a reflection of the fact that there is a super partisan divide on both sides. it has prevented anything from getting through. these unemployment insurance extensions just ran out last week. ponds in thisally argument between both sides. that is exactly the problem. both sides have put forth all kinds of jobs bills over the past year. it is hard for any of them to get through when you have a super party divide on the hill. will be the economic message in 2014? particularly as he talks to programs and things of that

nature. guest: i think he will say that things are getting better. there are still an awful lot of people falling through the cracks. these folks who just lost their unemployment insurance benefits are one example of that. i think we will see that continue as we hammer away on the inequality. this upper one percent has reached the lion share of economic benefits. he will continue to talk about that. host: and the house of representatives? guest: i think it will be a resounding no. they understand that his issues are not necessarily aligned with his. no matter what he says, the state of the union its being prepared now. i'll be a big part of the speech. the house will not be receptive to any of them. host: do you have a sense of anything from meetings with speaker boehner or republicans on trying to sell that message

or have a chance of relations on this topic with the house? guest: the president has meant less and less with john boehner. i think he rarely meets with mitch mcconnell. they have met on one hand to spare -- going into this election, i think there will be talking over each other. other fromlk to each a public relations standpoint to make it look like they are trying to cooperate, but behind the scenes, i do not think that there will be a lot of collaboration. eric from south carolina. a democratic line. caller: good morning. i just had a couple of points i wanted to make. is, i am ane longtime democrat. the republicans are continuing on. they're like kids that have murdered their parents and thence cream about being orphans.

it my airport theory. you'll find major municipal airports a lot of times but the infield grass grow tall. others can hide in that tall grass. it helps to illuminate the bird problem. i see that is going on. you had a guest on yesterday -- guest: -- host: what is your question for today? caller: do you think that this guy peter wainer, have you heard of him? i feel like he is not only giving them their talking points, the republicans. host: we have to leave it there. --est:

host: arlington, virginia. independent line. caller: i want you to compare if republicans have been more effective against president obama in limiting what he has done or against president bill clinton in getting his agenda done? i know that the last two people have made points that he does or interactschmooze with republicans. it's making mistakes in getting things done? grade the republicans in the clinton administration and the obama administration. cu has been more effective. let me break that question down into parts. first of all, you say that obama does not like to schmooze. he does not like to schmooze with democrats either.

he goes home with the wife and kids and prepared -- prefers to read books and watch tv. who invites people from either party over for drinks. a bill clinton, on the other hand was a much more gregarious, much more outgoing president. he was better at reaching out to theother side, for example, things he got done with newt gingrich of all people in the mid-1990's. that being said, that was 20 years ago. that is an eon in politics. i think things have gotten worse in general regardless of who is the president. even though obama -- he is not necessarily a people person, democrats can at least went to the fact that look, it has been five years, the economy is getting better, he has gotten us out of these wars, these are some of the things he was elected to do. now the fact he is not necessarily a people person is a reflection of his personality, but it is also a reflection of the times in which we live when

politicians simply do not talk to each other as much as they used to. host: the caller talks about bill clinton, what is the message strategy there? knows but just a really -- he really knows where the skeletons are buried, he knows how to get things done. he is like the un-rahm emanuel of the first chief of staff that obama had who was screaming and cursing people out, kind of getting things done. the chief of staff, but he is a good strategist and understand how to get things through congress pulls up he knows how to shape the president's image and term -- and tone. there is a midterm election year as well. he is being brought in not just to shape the image but also to help lay the groundwork so to speak for november. arlington, virginia, here

is josh, independent line. on,ogies, we will move tipping, georgia, mary. caller: can you hear me? it is so awkward not hearing your self. -- my comment is ter whatnder what -- mat president obama wants to do, he will not get anything accomplished. the republicans hate him. they will destroy the economy. it is not care. they have such a hatred for this man that is almost pathological, and someone needs to look into that. i also blame the news media. the news media makes it very difficult to accomplish anything. i wish somebody would do something about the news media. thank you. host: why do you point to the news media, ma'am? caller: i listen to the news

myself, i listened to the president, i listen to congress. you take a news media guy that will get on and will distort everything. start putting their opinion in there. and distorted. they keep the public so confused -- i wish they would just report the news and shut up -- guest: we will begin with a question like that, to go back to twitter, affordable, i get that all day long from people, and i think there is a next rotation in this hyper partisan this -- there is expectation in this hyper partisan world today. i try to go down the middle, and if you follow my twitter account, for example, i think that is the general sense that you will get in the fact that i am attacked every day by people on the left or the right. i am either out to get the president or i am in bed with him. which is it? the fact that i am attacked from both sides i think tells me that i am doing a reasonably good job. and your point that everybody is

out to get obama and how the other side hates him -- i've heard the very same stuff in the latter years of president bush's so this isice, too, really nothing new. there were democrats and folks on the left to simply hated george w. bush. i think we are seeing the very same thing now. it is nothing new, and in terms of destroying your economy, your point, really just talking about how much things are getting better in the last year or so, i am not quite sure i agree with your point. if you have to the twitter page for "west wing reports," not only as news of the day but also historical points. you go back to 2005 and posted things happening there. talk about the strategy and not only putting day-to-day news but also historical context. guest: that is a great point. there are a lot of folks who think we are going through a particularly tough time now. i think it is interesting to put

things in the context of broader history. we lady, the last caller had, for example, is saying the media is so horrible, it is all -- i feel terrible about that, but i brushed it aside. again, if you go back in history, george washington of all people complained about the press. he said he was called a traitor by the newspapers. thomas jefferson was a baboon, abraham lincoln was a maniac and a dictator -- on and on and on. these are our greatest presidents. now, the fact that president obama and president bush are attacked every day in the media -- it is really nothing new. it goes literally all the way back to our founding fathers, george washington, thomas jefferson, and so forth. what i think is differenct is the fact that we have twitter, we have this 24/seven cable news that tends to magnify the impact of this, but the fact that

being pilloried in the press every day is hardly new. you can go all the way back to george washington and find the very same thing. george washington bitterly resented the fact that he was called a traitor in the media. i am the father of my country and they are calling me a traitor. i am paraphrasing, but it is nothing new. host: where do you get your restorable data from and how do you decide what to put on the website? apple rolling have an out and this and that, i want to know what every president did on each day going all the way back 3, james k.uary polk did this or calvin coolidge did that, but i always want to try and connected to the present in some way or fashion. i think it is are useful, and of all the things i do on twitter, i think it is the one thing that i think get the most reaction by far. i think people appreciate it or at least i hope they do. host: "west wing reports" is the

publication, paul brandus our guest, westwingreports.com. charles, from the committee, thank you for holding on, republican line, good morning. caller: good morning, how are you. i would like to know why nobody aboutne anything impeaching obama since he has created the highest deficit in history. guest: again, i think it is the reflection of the times we live in where the opposition always wants to impeach the other president. now, you say for example that the economy.troyed that has always been an interesting point when people say that things really got bad when obama came to office. here is an example that i would do you, i do not know if the caller is still here or not, but the housing market collapsed in

2006, the stock market collapsed 2007, in august 2008, you have the fannie mae and freddie mac bailouts, in october 2008, bailouts, andank in december 2008, you have the beginning of the auto bailouts, so are you really sure that things really started to get bad in january 2009? tendencyeople have a to cherry pick history, ignore facts that are not convenient to their narrative. i would challenge your point that the economy has been destroyed, as you say. in terms of the deficit and the national debt, the deficit is down 40% in the past year. i would think that is a happy trend -- a healthy trend. in terms of the national debt, we are over $17 trillion now, and that is a huge problem. if you go back again in history,

which i try intent to do, if you look at the relative growth of the federal debt in prior at administration, you may will not the debtear this, but actually tripled during ronald reagan's eight years in office. it has gone up significantly obama, but it tripled during ronald reagan's time. says, areohn adams stubborn, but those are the facts. host: what about healthcare.gov? guest: they need to be more transparent in terms of how ms. people -- how many people are signing up. they are still releasing it on a monthly basis. the data shows that more people are being kicked out of their existing plans that are actually signing up either on the site itself or medicaid. even though the website is better, i think this is a huge

problem for him. i think it will be a tremendous issue in november, but the issue for the republicans is, you know, look, this is the law of the land now, and these -- whether you like it or not, i have issues with this health care plan myself for a variety of reasons, but the fact is once the law is established and roots and start to settle, it is so hard to uproot that plant. i think the entire republican strategy from the beginning was well, we will either try to voted down, that it not work. then we will try to repeal it. there have been dozens of votes to replay a lit -- to repeal it. i will try to defeat obama. that did not work. then the bad website came around and they focus on that, now the website is better, so everything they have done has not really worked. it is, and problematic movings, obamacare keeps

forward, again, from a short- irm, long-term standpoint, think that 40 years, 50 years from now when historians look back at this era, they will look at it sort of like social -- thereand medicare was a huge opposition to social security when fdr tried to implement it in 1934, 1 935. now people take it for granted. i think it will be dissenting with obamacare. host: democrat line for our guest, paul brandus, go ahead. caller: i would like to know what you think republicans are going to pick over the -- thank you. guest: again, it is a midterm election, and in midterm years, the president in power tends to lose seats in congress. that is ahistorical facts, and -- that is a historical fact.

republicans have 45 seats, and if you look at the seats -- there are an awful lot of vulnerable democrats, arkansas, for example, mark pryor i think is in big trouble. republicans could pick up the senate in november. host: how do you think it will roll in 2014? problematic. a lot of democrats because of obamacare have distanced themselves from him. now that things are getting better, perhaps that will change. i am not sure i will -- we will see him out on the campaign trail as much as he has in the past. we have approval ratings, 42%, 43%, people are not exactly knocking on the door inviting you to come campaign. host: hamden, connecticut, bob, republican line. hi. caller: it is kind of obvious that obama lied to everybody

about the health care bill to get this thing passed. why is the press so reluctant to use that term? they use the term misspoke. i would like to hear your opinion on that. thank you. guest: i call it a lie. it was a huge lie. in fact, nonpartisan organizations and dubbed it "the lie of the year." a some people call it misstatement, other people call it a falsehood, i think you have to call it what it is. i think people knew all along, and there were memos and stuff going back to 2009, 2010, that in fact indicated that the folks would in fact be losing their website -- i cannot answer for what other journalists have done. host: rodney from kentucky, independent line, you are on with paul brandus. caller: good morning. i just want to say that it really irritate me when i see

the members of congress, regardless of party, on different networks, attack the other side when they could go on and look in the mirror for they are part of the problem. less, what the american people to do to get them to work together, to get things going in this country that needs to be done -- it just really bothers me that they did not do something about unemployment. thank god i never had to draw it, but nevertheless, i know that there are people that needed that. i would like to ask your opinion on it. thank you. was the question how to get both sides to work? host: better relations on both sides. guest: congress is only in town through thursday, friday through

they arery the -- either out raising money or tending to their district. of the 435 seats in the house that are up for grabs this year, most of these races have already been decided. there are only probably 40, 45 seats depending on the data you are looking at. maybe 40, 45 seats that are truly up for grabs. there are a few are number of seats in congress that are truly contestable each year. this goes back 20 years. this partisan divide that we keep talking about keeps getting wider and wider each year. there are plenty of reasons for that. gerrymandering is one big reason. react to what folks and their gerrymandered districts want. there is little reason to cooperate with the other side because again they are represented be folks by, and what they want. i think that makes it harder to get things done. a couple of e-mails asking you please lay out areas the

-- can actan be effectively without working directly with congress? guest: from the white house say why, really the only thing he can do without running into this buzz saw in congress, the things on gun control -- yesterday, alleged a mental health issues, he is taking steps on the garment, going around congress -- by the way, it is interesting that people say the environment is a .emocratic issue the environmental protection agency was actually richard nixon. we were talking about reagan before, ronald reagan was the first cap and straight president. i'm not sure today's are publican party would welcome folks -- even ronald reagan and richard nixon into their party because of things they did. answer, i think you will see the president

continued to go the executive action route. it is just easier. i think five years of experience is enough for him to understand that's going through congress over there is not going to get him very far. host: how does his use of executive action compared to his immediate president -- immediate predecessor guest: that is another aspect people have wrong. at thego back and look number of executive orders that have been issued by this president, which is publicly available data, this president has actually issued far fewer executive orders than his immediate predecessors by a pretty large margin. randy from waterloo, iowa, democrats line. you are on, go ahead. if thisi was wondering guy has been around washington long enough to remember when one media outlet could only control 45% of the market, and now that

has been deregulated and they can control it all. do you remember? well, i might look young, but i have probably been around longer than you think. i think is to kind of turn your question around, people and played by the media all the time. it is nothing new. we were just talking about going back to george washington. the media today is more diverse than ever before. there are a million channels, a million websites, a million whatever you want. whatever your point of view is, you can get it anywhere, so no one controls anything to the extent people think. much venerated fox news channel that people think is so powerful is overly -- is really only watch in prime time by about 1.5% of the american population. people do not understand it. even in prime time, 8:00 monday through friday, 98%, 99% of the

population is doing something else, and they are not watching. i do not think there is any such thing is a totally dominant media any more, and i don't think that is a bad thing. host: is that bloggers and other types of media or starkly television, newspapers? everything, i am on every platform available, and i want to be, because iranians is so scattered. big tv networks -- because the audience is so scattered. the big tv networks, newspapers, daily briefings are silly and useless. the people did the bulk of the questions, and that is out is because they still command the biggest audiences. host: when you go to the daily briefings, how do you make news other than getting new strictly from the white house? think the briefings are

increasingly uses, i think the real move is to be had by talking with lesser officials will stop the white house -- lesser officials. it is the press secretary's job -- he works for the president, he works for the medications jerker. it is his job to represent the -- he works for the communications director. it is his job to represent the president and say as little as possible. on the other side, you have those guys, the 49 seats in the briefing rooms were trying to get as much information out of him as they can. their interests are not necessarily aligned, but often you can find. lower levels who are more willing to talk, more willing to leak documents to you, that kind of thing. again, talking about leaks, this white house hates leaks. they have prosecuted people for them, they think leaks are terrible and less of course they are the ones doing the leaking, of course then it is ok. again, that is nothing new. host: to that point ironically,

they have to do with edward snowden. if the nsa so going to be an issue for the president? guest: i think there will be. there was a "new york times" editorial urging the president to issue a clemency for snowden, bring him back home. i have a hard time seeing how they will do that. he has been charged with a felony, the white house view is that we were to ease up on him, it would possibly open up the door for others who have personal issues to grind to release information as well. i think that is a real issue for him, and i cannot see him doing that. from lisa is up next washington state, republican line, good morning. caller: good morning, gentlemen. just a couple quick comments. i am a middle-aged single woman, and i have just recently signed carer the affordable

insurance -- guest: and you are a republican? caller: yes, i am. i am recently divorced, i was living in middle-class lifestyle. i have been self-employed. it has been a burden to be able to afford health care. you have got huge amounts of a deductible before they pay anything. i don't see how any american can really pay $500 a month for insurance. that mr. obama's health care succeeds, the initiative succeeds, it is a plus for the country. guest: how is the white house preparing for what happens once the day in and day out of the ?ffordable care act

guest: it is a numbers game, pedro. at this point time, the data suggests that the number of people signing up is increasing, but not enough to make up for people who have lost their care. the whole underlying strategy is that the administration is banking on a lot of young who aregning up healthy, don't need expensive health care, paying into the system which would then pay for older folks who need care. that is a huge gamble here, and whether that pays off, time will tell, but right now, i think the lady's points,he $500 a month is an awful lot of money to some people, but again, to others who have been totally illness, the one opportunity to pay $500 a month to rent a total catastrophe, i think they might have a different point of view. but every person is different. it is a very consultative matter.

host: another aim of the session your estimation, what our president obama's -- another e- mail -- in your estimation, what our president obama's goals? guest: he wants to get out of these wars. he wanted to end the war in iraq , even though iraq is really trouble, really fallen apart in the last six months, this agreement to totally withdraw from afghanistan in 2014 unless karzai signs this security agreement, i think the intelligence community seems to think that afghanistan would fall apart if we get out of there as well. syria is a mess. we have this six-month interim deal with iran. the big picture is that poll after poll show that most americans do not want to get involved in any more of these foreign interventions. they want to mind their own

business. i think that is what the president trying to do. but it has lowered the american profile around the world i think resulting in some problems. host: there was a briefing not to long ago with jay carney in which the topic of white house photographers came up, pictures of the president from the white house photographer versus access from outside organizations. if you would, set up a little bit of what was going on behind the scenes as he saw it. guest: this white house is very kind ofontrol freak administration. every administration is like this, want to limit access, control the message as much as they can. it is nothing new. this spilled over to the photography issue where the president everyday have a lot of events that are not listed on the schedule, yet they will send , other staffers are present to the events, they will take a picture and release it, so they control the image and a message. but then you have folks who are

in the photo pool, ap and reuters and those folks who say look, we should be allowed into these events to take our pictures. that is exactly what the debate is all about. they had met the correspondent association, which i am a member of and i have met with jay carney, and they say well, we need to cooperate better and try and do better, but nothing ever changes. host: to give the folks a sense of this discussion, ed henry, head of the association, brought up this topic. here is the exchange. [video clip] >> he saw in the op-ed today by the head of ap, he is charging that the president in several critical when it comes to transparency and openness around here because of photographers on as thethe same access white house photographer. dozens of media organizations wrote to you recently. what substance steps are being taken?

what is being done to improve that access? >> thank you for the question, and let me tell you at the start here that from the president on believesryone here strongly in the absolute necessity of a free and to cover theress presidency, to cover the government, to cover washington. have someone who was a reporter for 21 -- i personally as someone who was a reporter for 21 years have a great deal of passion about this issue and believes strongly in the necessity of a free and independent press to cover the white house, the government, washington. host: paul brandus, what do you want to add? guest: it is convenient for him to say that, but the fact of the matter is that this administration, not unlike previous ones, they want to say as little as possible, control as much as possible. he can come on the stage in a briefing room and say whatever

he wants, but at the end of the day, they are going to try and dispense information with an eye dropper. that will never change. host: sharon, minneapolis, minnesota. caller: good morning, c-span, and thank you for taking my call. there are two things i would like the reporter to talk about what he wrote. one is about grover norquist and his pledge and what the republicans are doing about the pledge now, and the second thing is during the 50th anniversary of martin luther king, there was one republican, i watched it twice on c-span, and there was that spokeublican during the anniversary, and i want to know -- i think that would have been a perfect opportunity for the republicans to have racial relations with african americans. showed upe republican

to speak about it. i would like to know what you wrote about that anniversary. might bethink you mistaking me, ma'am, for some yelled, because i did not write forstories about that -- somebody else because i did not write any stories about that. but it is no question that in the 2012 election, obama got nine out of 10 african-american votes, and after that election, republicans did this postmortem and said look, we understand the demographics here, we have to do a better job of reaching out to hispanics, african americans, women, younger americans, and i think to talk about 2012, i think it would really behoove them to do a better job of reaching out to these folks instead of hammering away with what are called the three g's, guns, god, gays issue.

talk about the economy and what their dreams are and what they specifically are proposing to make things better. i think that would result in more traction for them. awaye polls then hammering at some of the social issues. again, i did not write about martin luther king, so i cannot really get into that. host: one more call, bill, oregon, republican line. caller: hi, how are you doing? now this obamacare has been made effect,d has gone into and, you know, just finding out about a lot of things, i am really kind of ticked off about it myself. i wonder what can the general public do about getting rid of it? how can we defined it or how can we take this thing out of law? i am kind of concerned about the way it is going. is a law it isaw awful hard to turn it back, and again the house tried 40 plus

times, time and again to repeal a, it did not work. even the supreme court has validated it. congress not being elderly, the supreme court has given its it's a stamp of i do not think this is going away. i hate to disappoint you, but it is the law of the land, and every day the roots are getting a little deeper. host: paul brandus, what he watching for when the president gets back on sunday and getting back into work mode? guest: as we shift into this election mode, what would he be due to move his agenda forward with a minimal amount of interaction with congress, i think, that if the main thing. he understands, pedro, that after five years of dealing with this congress, that he is not going to get a lot of mileage of dealing with him. he will do whatever he can to go around them, perhaps more executive orders. again, using his bully pulpit so

to speak and going out and hammering away on his members. host: if you are interested in our guest's website or twitter feed, you can find the information website, that is "west wing reports," paul brandus, founder and editor-in- chief, thank you. program, theh a first time the displacements went down since 2008. to discuss those numbers is jonathan bialoski. also, fewer executions of death 2013.mates in richard dieter of the death penalty information center will join us. our guest on the "newsmakers" program is michael needham of the heritage action for america. >> we need to modernize our immigration system. we need to have an immigration system they get the wealthy people from all around the world to come to this country and contribute to this country and

have jobs. unfortunately, you only get one 20 years to 10, 15, do big, bold immigration reform. >> what about the ones who are here? >> and there are all sorts of from buddy to be looked at in our immigration system. youdo not look at it if have a president in the u.s. who has demonstrated how he wants to use this issue for political means and not forgetting good policy. we can all agree, many people can agree, that we need to increase the number of h1b visas. 112th congress, republicans in the house, agreed to pass the h1b visas. i support a guest worker program. we should have something where people can come and work for a period of time and they go home. once you start fixing the imbalance in the labor market that currently exist, security becomes easier to do, you build up trust of the american people, and there may be a time in the future were you then say now

that we have fixed the system, what do we do about the people who are here right now? >> you then would back some sort of incremental approach that would keep the amnesty often beside. >> -- of to the side. >> it depends. with the president going forward, he has been pretty clear that it would be difficult to get immigration done that is not -- that does not include some sort of amnesty. we are against that. the way to go forward is to look incrementally at what can we do to fix the system, start improving the lack of matching between supply and labor demand. >> you don't think there will be any overturning or repealing of obamacare until 2017, see you are sort of suggesting that some bigger fish to the immigration system is not going to be possible at all after this president is out of office. i decided not think you will be getting a modern immigration system from this president. -- >> i do not think you will

get a modern immigration system from the present. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our next guest, jonathan bialoski of harvard losaw school. we are talking about the deportation process. this comes as the u.s. customs and enforcement put out numbers looking at deportation for 2013. they found that that number ,otal was about 369,000 people removal, 235 thousand of those rapper hinted at the border, 217,000 of those previously convicted of a crime. mr. bialoski, what do you think of those numbers? guest: they are certainly lower than previous years. what is troubling to me is the number of apprehensions that are near the border and removal in those area. the folks at rand and in that area have fewer rights legally and are subject -- the folks at or around that area have fewer rights legally and are subject to fewer protections than those removed from the interior.

a second point, even though they say the statistics about individuals remove with prior criminal convictions, there are a significant number of folks removed with relatively minor criminal interactions, so that is troubling as well. host: why is it different if you were apprehended at the border as far as your legal protections rather than if you were found inside the country? guest: the process at the border moves much quicker, it is called expedited removal and the government has many more advantages for my prosecutorial point of view. so there is that. also because of the huge numbers of folks apprehended in that area, the access to legal counsel because a much bigger issue because of the huge numbers of folks that are apprehended and the few number of attorneys in that area. what you think it is trending downward? guest: net migration from the southern border has slowed down, so that the view one reason, juster reason might be

changes and patterns and migrations, people going back. there has been a change in enforcement roared is within the folks whoor so giving are in this country and have been since they are young children the ability to stay. that would be another reason. host: i was going to ask the obama admin attrition takes a general approach as far as deportation as far as who goes and who stays. guest: they do. they have put an emphasis on these criminal aliens, the folks who have had interactions with the criminal justice system. they have -- on the other hand, allowed individuals through a new program that they affected in 2012 called deferred actions for childhood rivals, said that they will not remove individuals who arrived in the country from a very young age, have no criminal history, and have been receiving educational benefits here or the armed services. so enforcement priorities or something set by the

administration. host: our guest will talk about the deportation system in light of these new numbers. if you want to ask them numbers -- questions about it, you can do so on the phone lines. (202) 585-3880 for democrats, (202) 585-3881 for republicans, and (202) 585-3882 for independents. @cspanwj is our twitter address, and you want to send us e-mail, journal@c-span.org. ,ur guest, jonathan bialoski george washington university law school. he is an attorney at immigration clinic. guest: the immigration litigants for third year law students who want to gain rideable legal experts want to defend immigrants in court. they provide legal representation so long as they are under the supervision of licensed attorneys. so along with the director of the american -- immigration clinic, i serve as a supervisor is a licensed attorney. legal aspectsut or legal counsel that a person

to get if they are caught at the border or caught at the country. guest: i will focus on the interior removal process because that is what i focus on. an individual can be removed from the country, have certain rights in immigration court to put on defenses from removal, removal.om everyone in that process has right to counsel but it is not provided at government defense, so it is different from a public defender. the individual has a right to attorney but must find it on his or her own. myself and other immigration attorneys and students in the immigration clinic help individuals in immigration courts defend against removal by saying that they are eligible for certain relief, either by nature of their tie to the country or a hardship they might face upon removal to their home country. host: this all starts with getting a notice that they will appear in court, someone who is found guilty of breaking the law --

guest: it can happen in a number of ways. the most common way is interaction with the criminal justice system. this is where it gets constipated. we have two legal systems itking simultaneously at -- gets complicated. we have two legal systems working simultaneously. anybody who commits a crime, driving without a license to something more serious, that individual has an interaction with the criminal justice system . at the end or in the middle of that legal process, immigration officials are aware that the individuals is here without permission, and then the individual gets in contact with the immigration enforcement system. so we have the criminal justice system, and immigration courts working sometime simultaneously, but typically immigration comes after. the person present their lawyer, and then what happens? guest: i.c.e. plays a prosecutorial role and typically

backed the issue -- the agency that issues a notice that says that jonathan bialoski is in the country and we make these allegations against him and we march in with her mobility, the portability from the country. that starts the process, then individual has a parliamentary hearing before a judge and admits or denies, sort of like dating those allegations and offers what might be any a defenseor example, of deportation. the individual at a later date as a full hearing. that is where the attorneys help prepare the case. host: if they admit, does that actually mean automatic deportation? guest: you have to admit you are here unlawfully to be eligible. it would not make sense if i had a student visa or guestworker visa to say that i am charged with the portability because i would have the permission to be here. outright admission does not necessarily to me your case. host: how long is the process

take over all? guest: it varies in every case, but it takes a long time. because of the backlog, it is not uncommon for an individual to have a preliminary hearing in 2014 and not have a full merit hearing until 2016 or 2017. that is because of the huge amount of individuals caught up in the immigration court system and the relatively small number of immigration judges in court. host: when a decision is made and someone is deemed to go out of the country, what kind of recourse do they have? guest: there are appellate options. there is an administrative body called the board of immigration appeals, so once the immigration judge lodges his or her decision, the individual has appellate rights to that immigration agency, and the adjudications of those appellate cases take an additional extended period of time, sometimes years. after that body makes a decision, individuals will have recourse to appeal to federal circuit courts, so there is another level, and then beyond

that, there is an option to go all the way to the supreme court. there are several layers in the process, if drugged out, can take sometimes maybe even 10 or 12 years. the process, if dragged out, can take sometimes maybe even 10 or 12 years. not many individual cases get to the supreme court. there are challenges, like to the law in arizona. host: if it ever reaches the court, how does the court activates situations typically? guest: they analyze the law anticonstitutional he of the law, so if somebody is on removable under a certain provision or deported under a certain provision, the supreme nott will say this law is constitutional for this reason, so they will say this law is unconstitutional and struck down, we will remit this case back to the immigration court for the immigration judge to now analyze the facts of this case under our new holding of what the law is. host: our guest, jonathan bialoski of the george

washington university law school. here is lowest, democrats line. -- lois. caller: when are they going to start -- [inaudible] to start thegoing dream act for the american kids that are coming up? yesterday, two mexican women were following me around laughing, pushing and pushing, when will it stop? guest: the caller brings up a great point. first, what country can you go to illegally and not face immigration repercussions? i am unaware of any. in regards to the dream act, that is a proposed law to keep those who arrive in the country at a young age from being deported and then offer them some sort of legal status. the reaction of the obama administration in 2012 that a watered-down version of that

where they offered individuals who met certain criteria a temporary authorization and a product -- and they promised they would not be deported. that was a previous rapunzel, let something like that is something we would like to see in any comprehensive immigration reform. host: on twitter, haskins asks -- what specific rights does on undocumented person have under current law? guest: everybody has his or her own unique immigration story, having arrived at a certain time in a certain manner and may have committed any number of criminal or immigration violations, so the work i do for , he or she will have rights to put on defenses against the rotation. host: here is albert -- against the deportation. host: here is albert. you on, sir, go ahead. caller: i have a couple of quick

questions for you. why re: illegal immigrants allowed in the u.s. when they are taking jobs from the , yet we areizens not allowed to go over there and take any jobs, and we are taking care of them while they are here, housing them, feeding them, yet we cannot take care of the people in the united states of america. guest: i certainly understand s frustration, particularly in the last two years when it has become harder for all workers regardless of country orientation. the bottom line is those who have come to this country legally and have benefited the economy, many studies they show immigrants do provide a boost to the economy and frankly speaking, it would be impossible for our government from a resource pointed you to stop all immigration and/or to round up all of those undocumented immigrants in the country and remove them. host: you talk about appeals, if

from twitter asks -- how many times can appeal be made? can belike sf, the case made to the administration body notice the board of a major dashboard of immigration appeals like i said, the case can be boardo the administration of immigration appeals, and it can go up to the supreme court. host: how do they deal with this sort of thing? guest: it is thousand and the department losses -- it is housed -- there are courts dedicated to the immigration. they of course all around the country. not in every state. they focus specifically on immigration. one mistake that people often make is they try to lump immigration court or the proceedings under immigration law into this sort of criminal context, and immigration law is all civil administrative law.

so there is a body of courts dedicated specifically to the adjudication of immigration cases. host: if you are off of e-mail says -- are these offenders usually here off of -- here without the document tatian a overstayed their visas? youran you describe average client? guest: those who have had entry document that have expired or those who have entered unlawfully, i believe the misconception is that the majority have entered without proper documentation, but i think that is not true. i think it is almost a mix. see israge client that i bury much determined by the type of work but i do which is asylum work. so i and the student that i work folks who fear persecution if they are removed to their home country, so folks that are eligible for asylum, fear persecution, and are eligible for protection in this country,

so because they have a some sort of hardship before coming, for example their political opinion or their religion, so i often work with clients that have suffered severe trauma and fear persecution upon return to their home country, based on one of those factors, politics, or religion, race, nationality, or membership in a particular type of group. george washington day- to-day involvement in these cases as well. under correct, supervision of myself and the director of the immigration clinic. host: next called, democrats line. caller: good morning, jonathan. i have a couple of comments as i was listening to the situation, i know of a particular situation where this person got a notice to appear in court. on the notice to appear, the charges were all wrong. the prosecutor, the judge of the immigration court had changed

the charge. it was a total different charges that was there. they changed the charge, so it can become a criminal deportation because federal law -- it is an actual act for a petition, right? guest: >> yet, i heard the yes, i hearduest: the question -- host: what would you like our guest to address? caller: i, myself, i was there, i wouldn't front of the judge and challenged the notice to appear by pointing out the wrong information that the prosecutor himself was stating to the judge. asked the prosecutor if there is a -- guest: i'm sorry, i lost the call. i cannot give any particular

legal advice on air. she did mention a criminal charge, and that leaves -- if folks have had interaction with the criminal justice system and have the criminal defense coded a certain way, and they are classified as what are called aggravated felonies, once they get to the immigration court perceiving, regardless of the circumstances or how long someone has been in the country or what hardship they might face in their home country, they have very few sometimes no options at all to protect against deportation. host: 270,000 of those apprehended in 2013 were previously convicted of a crime. why are they still here? is a: often times it matter of resources. we know from the government's own figures that they have the resources to remove from the country on or about the level of 400,000 individuals a year, so why frankly, i think it is an issue of manpower. in some cases will. exercise efforts to

prosecutorial discretion and there might be individuals who are subject to have their cases closed if they can show ties to the u.s. or against him hardship if they were removed. host: you mentioned prosecutorial discretion. that is a statement that came up from the center of immigration studies. this is what they said -- the reason guest: i take issue with that statement a little bit just because you hear very often -- there was an article in the "washington post" a few days ago about the deportation system tearing families apart. it is not at that anybody with any family tie to the u.s. cannot be removed. that is not the case. there has been an effort to exercise prosecutorial discretion, in other words, not

target individuals with family ties and minor criminal charges for deportation, but it is in play not true that everyone with family ties is not subject to deportation. host: when she says 90% of the population off limits -- guest: again, i disagree with that. i know some of the figures that have come out have not only shown as i mentioned at the top of the program that some of these minor criminal charges can be something as a similar to a speeding ticket, so the notion that the administration is targeting criminal aliens -- that is something that seems to exist on paper but you do hear about a significant number of cases where folks just have limited or in some cases no interaction with the justice system. is ouronathan bialoski, guest, this is dave, republican line. caller: good morning, jonathan. there has been a recent case where a legal, apparently they apparentlyegals,

they were attorneys and other countries, but they came to the u.s. and they were illegal and are now allowed to practice law, i don't know what the feeling would be on that. maybe we could have millions of attorneys come from all these countries the legally -- illegally. maybe that would make lower attorney fees nationwide. it sounds great to me. maybe we could go clear down to minimum wage for attorneys. one at that be wonderful -- wouldn't that be wonderful? about there was a story california and their supreme court stating that immigration status or lack of immigration status is not a bar to being a member of the state bar, in other words, being able to practice law. that is a state prerogative unlike the rest of immigration law. this is separate from immigration -- being able to practice law is something that states decide. states certainly have the discretion to choose who they want to be lawyers and have broad authority to do so.

i applauded the decision of california. i think it is great. i do not know that immigration status and determine whether or not somebody is fit to be a lawyer. host: brian up next on select city, utah, independent line. caller: i know this is going to go right over your head and you are not going to be able to answer it -- when our government turns its head and let 14 million people break the law, and they are breaking about 10 laws, they steal identities, social security numbers -- what law can i break? give me 10 laws i can break and just turn your head and let me break the law. host: what is the question, caller? caller: can i break the law? illegal don't mean sick bird. you let these people come over here, they take our jobs -- and they are taking good jobs, not his our pineapples and cantaloupes. bringsi think the caller

up a point that i like to make which is that immigration law is civil law. are people that have violated criminal law, but sadly being in the country without permission is a violation of our civil law, and i cannot count the caller or anyone else or my clients to be breaking criminal laws. host: pew research did a poll asking hispanic and asian americans how worry about their status, it is mannix -- hispanics expressing more concerned about a or a close friend being deported. those are numbers that we saw. how many come from latin american countries? guest: there are obviously a significant amount of latino immigrants in the country, but immigration as a whole presents a wide variety of people from different ethnic and cultural background. one of the views that you come into contact with folks from all over the world, and in a metropolitan area like d.c., it

is hard to put a number on what percentage of people come from example,rica, for but depending on where you are in the country, there are pockets of immigration populations that do tend to be from the same area, and because there prosody to mexico, -- the proximity to mexico, there are a lot of latinos in the country. host: democrats line. caller: we hear this issue about the illegal immigrants. basically, individuals did not come here and less there were ,obs here, and it seems to me you know, if we do not supply these individuals with jobs, which there are a tremendous number of predatory employers, they will not come here. back inthese people mass, yet when they arrive here, there are jobs for them. could you speak to that, please? guest: thank you for the call. i do see on a daily basis

working with folks on this job and a prior job that economics are the main reason for people to migrate to the country, to come to the u.s., and it is true that there are predatory practices going on where employers are able to exploit particularly the undocumented population. that said, i do not know that there are any measures that anyone can take to create fewer jobs or take away jobs. there is certainly an economic pull from the u.s., and until they go the way, i'm not sure how it would, i think we can expect migration. host: how did you get involved in this kind of work? guest: because i wanted to help people. i saw it as a way to help people at a very basic level, improve the lives of people and their family. i focus on this in law school and i've been practicing since i graduated. host: how many cases have you handled. job, i just current began in july, but at my previous job and can -- in kentucky, something around 300 or so cases a year. bea from hype creek,

texas, republican line. caller: i would like to know first of all who is paying for these illegals to have all this help? and who is going to pay for mine as an american citizen? that was one question and the other is can obama issue an executive order to have amnesty for all these people, and believe me, there are more than 11 million in this area. thank you. guest: thank you for the question. to your first point about health care, typically what we see is undocumented individuals in the country might not have insurance, so they have to go to an emergency rooms for routine illnesses for even something like a cough or cold or flu.

that affects the whole insurance pool, so that is a ig issue of undocumented aliens having health issues. hopefully this is taken care of with our health care laws. president obama does have certain executive authority set enforcement priorities for deportation, but in terms of an amnesty or deportation process that, would be an act of congress. i do know in the senate proposal for comprehensive immigration reform, there have een safe guards to try to -- we do know that there's a big component of enforcement and the senate proposalal sets sort of landmarks before the rest of the immigration reform can take place, in other words, it

creates certain targets that seem nebraska will you explain before the other provisions are able to take effect. >> i think she was talking about the counsel and who pays for it. guest: they have to seek pro bono or low-cost legal representation. there are private immigration attorneys and services provided at the individual's expense. host: north carolina is where ronny is on the independent line. good morning. caller: hi. i have a question. actually a comment and then i would like to hear jonathan bialoski's comment to it. i was just wondering since we are a nation of laws, what about all the people who actually go through the legal process of immigration? somehow it's a mockery of that

process if you choose to give out allowances for illegal immigrants and what about all the millions who are actually waiting in their home countries for a visa or the lottery to come through so they can come here illegally? guest: you've made an important point. there are limits on the number of visas that are available set by law, so there are people that do try to come to the united states and immigrate legally but there are restrictions that have been set by congress to prevent freedom doing so in a common man sore it's true to hear about people who have been waiting in line and folks here now undocumented should get to the back of the line is a bit odd and confusing to me, because that's not really reform at all if we're asking people to get to the back of the line which might span years.

host: for those waiting for their cases to be heard, where do they stay? guest: for the folks near the country they are here with -- without any rights or additional rights and often are separated from their families. host: how often kit take to get a case heard? guest: it's not uncommon to have the preliminary heareneding and then not have the full merit hearing for three or four years. whereby individuals who can sponsor family members overseas to come here and live legally and permanently, there are certain classes of individuals that have to wait sometimes as many as 20 years to get into the country because of those statutory caps on the number of visas available. >> thank you for taking my call. i just wanted to say how

derogatory it is for people to refer to all latino people or hispanic people as mexicans. it's just like using the n word. it's very disrespectful, and jonathan, i appreciate that you refer to us as hispanics or latinos. i guess i'll just leave it at that. i just wanted to make a comment. guest: thank you for the call unfortunately, because of the s in the er of latino country but it is a sad state of affairs when people are referred to in a manner like so we refer to them as undocumented immigrants and try to be respectful of their home

countries. caller: i thought that the states passed laws. doesn't make any sense. pass laws and say you can't hire these illegals yet they are being hired left and right and no one is doing anything about it. just like me, i have my own business and i messed my back up, and i was out of work for a while and then six months later when i got back in the workforce all these illegals came in and practically took over all the construction. and cut our prices in half. host: caller, do you have a question for our guest? caller: yes, why are the laws that are already on the books not being enforced? guest: first of all, i'm very story hear about your back and employment problems but when it

comes to employment it's federal law that determines work and rants to unfortunately though i know everybody knows there are a large number of undocumented immigrants working in this country and it goes back to resources. i don't think we have quite frank thirty man power to police all these individuals that are working without permission. host: from california this is cary on the democrats line. cary from california? caller: yes. i'm commenting on the immigration taking our jobs from america. i do believe it's sad when you go sit at your dinner table to eat those vegetables and the american citizen or white man ut refused to do the work.

host: we'll hear from larry next. this is larry from washington d.c. republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm listening to people talking. and there's a statement i can make. 20 years, both parties republicans and democrats have been playing games. illegal aliens there's not 11 million. they are from all over the world. england, china, south america, central america. shannon: larry our interest theory handle deportation-type questions. caller: that's the point i'm talking about where they are coming through from the southern border and they learn spanish and deporting them is a joke. same guy that spoke to the lawyer allowing illegals because there's 20 million-40

million illegal aliens from all over the world and the country is bankrupt and we're going to have a financial collapse. host: so what would you like our ghost snards caller: they are not serious. host: those -- guest: the first caller's point, i think there is this notion that the undocumented and certainly legal immigrants provide vital services so one thing we might hope for is an increase on the number of visas r employment-based imgravents. i simply don't think there are the resources available to round up and deport 12 million-20 million or however many illegal immigrants there are in the country but from a humanitarian point of view that simply doesn't make sense.

host: so since we're seeing lower cases that means more are winning their cases? guest: yes. a lot of it has to do with resources. even as an immigration attorney i sometimes need to remember that these are those who don't to handle resources so many. caller: a question and comment to our panelist this morning. first statement. what is the definition of illegal and law breaking in this country now? and another statement is i'm sick of that argument that the vegetables on your table argument. h maybe you're not shopping in grocery stores these days.

what have did this great country do for hundreds of years before we were able to swarmed with 10-20 million illegal aliens? primarily from mexico with fifth and sixth-grade educations? yes, we're going to stop existing as the united states of america because we decided we're going to stop subsidizing and just like this guy sitting here in front of us. i mean, you have a whole cottage industry built around an illegality. and i mean, it's a joke. and people see you for what you are. listen, there are other criminals in this country that breaks other types of laws and you're probably a pretty good attorney and could represent people that are united states citizens that have broke at any laws relative to an entire cottage industry. host: we'll let our guest respond. guest: the point i would like

to make is immigration law is civil law so simply being here without permission is not a crime. people might be here and might be committing criminal violations but what i do and other immigration attorneys do try to help those here try to exercise their rights to stayso it's not as if we are intentionally encouraging anybody to break laws or assisting anyone in that enterprise. caller: good morning off bit of a cold, so i apologize for my voice but if the lawyer could explain because i know currently there's an immigration law that's going through but i was hoping he could briefly rain? process an individual would go through if he has been able to study the specific law that an individual would go through from beginning to end being able to become a citizen just briefly about how that would work.

thank you so. guest: thank you for the call. i hope your cold gets better. i have been able to look at the senate proposal but i hesitate to provide any advice because as you state there's still work to be done. the house needs to act so before 2007 final bill we don't know what any sort of legalization process would look like so i think that's what the caller was addressing. what about the power to -- guest: the president could say let's not deport anyone. i don't know that that would be aning a investigation of his responsibility but doing that wouldn't provide any permanent status to anyone in the country. it would at most give them a temporary authorization to be here so we would need an act of congress to lead to that.

host: republican line from tennessee. caller: i was prompted to call because man said we didn't have any resources to take care of this problem, and in regards to the 10th amendment of the constitution, we have bases in korea, japan, germany, all over the world, and the only actual job the government has given the constitution so protect this country from all invaders, isn't it? so if our resources, as you call them, have been spread around the world with these little police actions that our government even refuses to call wars so that they can cripple the real citizens, the fighters and sole jerds of this country, that's the whole reason they don't call war, war so they don't have to pay people for their damages.

but the only job of the government so protect our borders. guest: if i understood the caller it's why don't we have enough protection if we have those overseas, i would foibt direction to the figures from the department of homeland security that says we have 360,000 deportations a year but an undocumented population of 12 million people in the country. i do think it's a resources issue that the number of deportations represent onlyal portion of the actual number of undocumented. in the last few years we've seen record deportations so and administration has set deported record numbers of

aliens. this number, this year is down from the past few years but we know at a peak it's pproximately 400,000 a year. a lot has to do with economic and public safety factors and of course immigration reform and any possibility far this year. host: jonathan bialoski is the attorney at law at the immigration clinic. thanks for coming on. guest: thank you for having me. host: our next guest it's a injection lethal drugs that is resulting in the shortage of people put to death. >> i think it's interesting to sit here and talk about how the

republican party is less unified than the democratic party when i think historically it's an interesting time to be stoiting this because really for the first time in recent years we are seeing a crean party that's facing many struggles the democratic party faced when they were tinkering with the reform process every four years. >> the inner play of what happened and how candidates deal with what happened and how the context that they are running in play out and especially if you're running in a context in which you can present yourself as an abused or part of an abused group. abused by the system, you can really play that quite well. and whether that's the cases that jeff talked about or roy moore in alabama who, you know, used the 10 commeantsd controversy very effectively in terms of an attack on christian

conservatives. i think that's very much the case. >> this weekend on c-span the state of the national parties and a look at the political scandals and politics of recovery today at 10:00 eastern. live sunday on c-span 2 your calls and comments from the best-selling author of five . n-fiction books, and we look back at the impeachment of william jefferson clinton. >> the sideline approaching for c-span's student scroom competition. answering the question, what's the most important issue congress should address this year with a 5--57-minute documentary. there's $100,000 in total prizes with a grand prize of

$5,000. get more info at student cam .org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our guest is richard dieter with the death penalty information center. they are looking at u.s. executions showing they are down. why is that happening? guest: well, i think innocence is a big deal. the system can make mistakes. innocent people have been freed. sometimes through d.n.a., sometimes through work of journalism students. so it means you have to weigh the riskses of the death penalty especially given that little comes out of it. so fewer states with the death penalty right now. host: of the 3,100-plus people on death row, 39 executions took place in 2013 with new death sentences totaling of about 80. what's behind those numbers?

>> well i think you have to compare them to the 1990's. 1996 there were 318. now we're down to 8 0. that's a 07 drop. the number of state that don't have the death penalty has rizz bin 50%. so these are phenomenal numbers. not just small changes. this is a basic shift that we're finding the death penalty not necessarily morally wrong but irrelevant. just not very useful in our criminal justice system. we use life without parole. that's become the alternative and i think that explains the other side of it. innocence and life without parole. host: 32 states allowing the death penalty as it currently stands. 18 states abolished the death penalty. who stands out as far as those who do have the death penalty? >> well 32 is still the majority of the states in the

country so the death penalty exists on the books in most of our states. but it's not being used by most of those states. 32 states have the death penalty but only nine carried out an excution. and more than half were in just two states, texas and florida. the typical leaders of this, and only 15 states imposed a death sentence but most death penalty states did not veeverpb a death sentence or execution, and of course many states don't have the death penalty at all, so i think what we're seeing is an isolated death penalty. a narrow. we did another report that showed only 2% of the counties in the u.s. have had an excution -- have been responsible for most of the executions in the past 40 years. 85% of the counties have had no executions in the past 40 years. host: texas being listed as number one as far as 2013 16

executions took place. florida, seven executions and third oklahoma with six executions. guest: yes. these are all in the south. it's not condemnation but a statistical point that 82% of the executions since 1976 when the death penalty came back have been in the south. so it's not something that the country practices as a whole. it's something that a narrow part of the country believes in, and that's where the debate is. host: richard dieter of the death penalty information center our guest until 10:00 a.m. we to republican and democrat crat and independent lines. what is the most common type of exzphution >> by far it's lethal injection. that's what all the states use as an ordinary means and military should they have any executions. so it's become the norm.

although it's become difficult lately because states are having a hard time finding the drugs to carry out lethal injections. so there's some talk about maybe going back to the electric chair. host: why is there difficulty in finding the drugs? guest: these drugs manufactured mostly in europe. not just death penalty drugs but a lot. and europe has a strong stance against death penalty and when they found out their companys re exporting drugs to u.s. prisons, they put sanctions on that and the companies themselves issued statements saying we don't make drugs for killing. we make drugs for life-saving purposes. so they put the restrictions on selling these drugs. and so the prisons can't get them so now they are turning to

small local institutions typically not regulated on a national level, although scongs addressing that issue. of states are turning to secondary or backup procedures from small disrepresentible firms sometimes. it's a bit of a quandary or a mess right now, because they don't know from execution to execution whether they will have the drugs and whether the courts will approve of where they got them from. host: i think it's a. also reported that the type of drugs are changed. there used to be a cocktail and now there's only one? >> yes, from 1981 the same three-drug process was used and now it's changing almost monthly with states simplifying the process. they use one drug that they have to obtain and also less risk with the one drug of things going wrong.

but the one drug pent bar ba to has been manufactured for decades in denmark. and they don't want that used anymore. so it's a bit of experiment. florida is using a drug never before used in executions ohio has one scheduled this month using a combination never used before, so we don't know what will happen. >> what's the purpose of the combination of drugs? >> the first is an anesthetic and insufficient quantity would actually cause death but it takes longer. the second and third drugs sact quickly. poe that is yum chloride is what really acts in a minute or two to stop your heart and cause death. anesthetics stop your system's flow and you go to sleep and in sufficient quantity you will lose consciousness and die over a longer period of time. they don't want an excution.

the public watches this. t on tv but there's victims' family members and lawyers, media. something that's quick and sure is what the states are after but they have had to scale back so executions are taking longer. not hours but longer than they used to. host: our first caller is on the democrats line good morning. caller: good morning. host: you're on. go ahead. caller: i'm just concerned about the fact that there's a death penalty in existence period because i think it's immoral, and when it comes to blacks, it seems like they are executed more than any other race. guest: certainly there are problems with the death penalty. and for some it's simply a moral problem. i think for others it's an objective of factual-based problem and you've identified one of those problems. and it doesn't always seem to

be fair. there's a disproportion nat number of african-americans on death row and being executed the murder cases involved a white victim. murder ase in which the victim was black, not a death penalty case. shannon: if there was a -- guest: the murder rate in the country has come down. it's come down quite a bit since the 1990's. hasn't changed much in the decade since 2000. that's when the drop in the death penalty occurred. but i think the biggest take if from all this is that the death penalty were a strong deterrent to murder, we would

be seeing the murder rate go way up, because we're not using the death penalty much. the less we use it, the more crime seems to come down, which is opposite prediction. host: robert on our independent line, good morning. caller: yes, sir. and good morning to both of you. first of all, i share the concerns of the previous caller about the fairness of it. but i have a different question here. of ot change the method execution from lethal injection to the firing squad. to me that would be much more simple and much quicker if we have to have a death penalty at all. guest: right? well, i think this is -- some public would support that but i have a feeling most would not. most would find it horrific that we're shooting in a bloody

spectical, you know, i think the method of execution has to do with making the death penalty palatable. we know it's got some problems, so a medical model sort of eases the way and we put the inmate to sleep. evently he dies. no muscle, no fuss. a firing squad i think you're right is probably very quick and the bullets are available. but we're probably not going back there. every time you talk which is onlyalal -- the only time utah has had one of those executions. and they use a firing squad, it's a spectical. people come from all over and people want to watch on tv. not the image that the state wants to create, and so i don't think we're going to have it even though it might be efficient. host: is electrocution still used? uest: only if the inmate

chooses it and virginia had one but if there's no choice it's lethal injection everywhere. o these old -- host: there were 98 executions 1994 and 1996 in it was at its peak. from pennsylvania, rene, good morning, democrats line. caller: hi, how how are you? thank you for taking my phone call. my comment is in 2008 i had to have my husband removed from life support from a respirator. he was very ill. and i was 48 years old and he was only 54, and what i witnessed, i cannot tell you -- going into detail about it. we brought t is

the death penalty back. i know it's back. but it's back in full force. i truly believe in my heart the crime rate would drop immensely. now, we all know how much it costs to put these prisoners on death row. and i personally would not want to sit in a four-by-four cell 23 hours a day and have all of my freedom taken away from me. we are adults. and i know a lot of criminals are not adults. they are young people, but when you take that choice and you take another life violently like some of these violent crimes that we have in our country, because i truly believe women and children are not safe in our country anymore. guest: well, first of all, i'm story hear about your husband. i see that you've experienced a life and death struggle. of course, you know, that i think underscores the importance of life.

and i think that applies even to people on death row. you raise a number of good points. 26 cost is clearly, it costs society, it costs us taxpayers more noun put somebody on death row and keep them there through all the legal parts of it, the trial and appeals than to keep them in prison for their whole life, and you say prison for your whole life is probably worse punishment. that may be true. i think it's important to realize that for the crimes you talk about, no one is talking about forgiving or forgetting about it. it's either life without parole today in every death penalty state or the death sentence so that nobody is going away unpunished. now the states that don't use the death penalty by and large have less murders, less murder rates. so the idea that if we just

executed people, the crime or at least murder would go away is simply unsupported by the numbers. as a matter of fact, they said earlier, the less we use the death penalty it seems the fewer the murders there are. hype viewer asked if the lessonning of the deep sudeep a decision or request not to use the death penalty? >> with prosecuters still supporting the death penalty by and large, but they are seeking it less because they know the juries are less likely to give it. the juries are demanding science. d.n.a. even in regular cases. they expect every case to be proved 100%. if it's not, they are not going to give death penalty. they may still find somebody guilty. so injuries are opting for life without parole. prosecuters know this so they

are taking plea bargains earlier and more cases are settling. caller: yes. my question is do you know anything about the government buying 30,000 by the teens? on youtube you can punch it up. ndaa bill. yes, they are -- they have purchased 30,000 by the teens. - guillotines. >> it was not unheard of but we have never used it in this country to my knowledge. host: california with the most 731 people. florida and about 300 in texas. talk a little bit about the death row experience as it currently stands in the united states. >> you pointed out that california has by far the

largest death row in the country and the largest number of death sentences in trustworthy twitter but the state least likely to carry out the executions and that's sort of the contradiction. there's 3,100 people on death row and 39 executions. it's an imbalance. so basically people are being sentenced to death but it's life to get it. death row means single cell, your meals are brought to you, it's an expensive way to keep snb prison compared to the general population. host: so there's a delay in the legal process that leads up to the time of getting the sentence and it being served snout >> that's part of it. it's 15 years on average

stweensing and execution. add to that in california they have the problem with the lethal injection where they have not settled on a drug. they have not got an method approved by the courts. so they are being held up by that. but even when they were executing people, it was one or two a year and theaves not going to get 730 people executed in our lifetime. caller: i agree with richard. i'm shocked that people just won't help that when states execute fewer people there's not only fewer homicides but look at the states that are executing people. they have the highest level of homicides in the united states. this has been true for years. you get property the crimes and of course somebody is going to die if you beat them long enough but it's a brutalization effect capital punishment has on a pop will you explain and

if we use it routinely like but it's y oros perceived as a sthrution one's problems. guest: i think the point is well made. some would say well we use the death penalty a lot because we have a lot of murders, but it's clear the regions in the 1% of the s than executions citizens death penalty came back. and has the lowest murder rate in the country. and the south has the highest murder rates and the highest executions. that's not necessarily cause and effect. but you would think that the regions that use the death penalty the most would have to east murders if the deep was -- they don't find it ,

minnesota, throughout maryland now. this past year. don't find it necessary. there's other ways. it's not they want to let them go or that they don't have murders but the death penalty is a very cumbersome, risky, you could get an innocent person and often unfair and not worth the effort. > there's a map here dom paired to -- >> and the world -- guest: the u.s. is oddly in line with some of the countries we find problematic when it comes to human rights. so some of the middle east countries that we push for change. china that we hope will adopt more human rights. these are the execution countries. our closest allies in europe and canada and mexico, ustralia, not only do they not

have the death penalty but are pushing through the united nation it's and some zrangses to get thetous address this issue. and i had comes up in state epartment talks and visitors through washington want to snowe why is the u.s. using the death penalty is there's a case coming to and that's caused a lot of trouble m -- trouble. even with the secretary of tate oncary asking other countries to grant clemency. it's a cost of the death penalty. host: john is up next from a alaska, republican line. good morning john. caller: yes. thank you. look, i just wanted to say this. i'm listening to mr. richard dieter. and he made a comment roords to

fall billty. i find that very disturbing in regards to the method of the injection. i think that when something is not palatable, i think it just brings more of an aware necessary that when somebody contemplates taking a life unless someone is mentally deranged and goes out and murders somebody they may think twice in doing that. and i have to say that i know you're showing all the statistics and everything. but i still depee. i think that we as people are trying to form our own laws. we're not using a guideline. i believe when a life is taken and someone is judged by their peers that they should nay penalty for taking that life. i think about the people who have lost children or husbands

or wives to murder. and so what we're saying is well, that's not a heinous crime, but it is if we put somebody if we deem that somebody convicted and should be tried for murder that we should have second thoughts about that. because of all these statistics you're talking about. host: we'll let our guest answer. guest: well, the method of execution is something chosen by the states. the u.s. supreme court did not force them into this. the you know,o courts have not. they have chosen this lethal injection. think they realized that the death penalty sits on the fence. it could be abolished or supported. but if it's too gruesome, and 'm saying this in terms of it's the states that are

choosing to make this more palatable to hold on to the death penalty. and you made a point. when you take a life, there ought to be a punishment. there should. the question is should it be the death penalty? if we were really to have a society in which if you take a life, your life is taken, we would have 1 executions per year surpassing china. that's not going to happen. but from the 14,000 murders we pick 39 people to get executed. ?ho are those did they have a bad lawyer or were they in the south and kill a white person rather than a black person. that's how we choose the 39, and that's just not the american system. host: the report goes on to talk about six repealed states in six years. talk about what's happening on the state level. guest: this hasn't happened in over 30 years that the state

legislatures pick up this issue of the death penalty. used to be the politicians ran from the -- it was the others you didn't want to get near. but governor martin o'malley made it his priority to get rid of the death penalty and was elected and re-elected backed y substantial murder of a doctor's family. still got rid of it. in other events. illinois, a mid western state that had as many as 170 people on death penalty got rid of the death penalty recently. so something happened. six states in six years. we're new jersey should going to see states in various parts of the country saying look, the death penalty is supported by some and opposed

by some but it's not working for any. are be it's time to take able to make those statements and because they can point to the problem of the death penalty. now it's -- but it's not working. host: our guest is richard dieter of the death penalty information center. this is bonnie from policemanth, north carolina, independent line. caller: yes. i have a question. if we're talking the death penalty and how the use of it is being done, my question is why, if someone has been caught in the act doing violent murders, why are we paying for -- to sit there when it's they have been done. hy can't they be punished in a >> why wait for the drugs or medical reasons and everything

else? elek row to cution was great. in the -- electrocution was great. in the old days it was hanging. guest: i think what gets in our way is the system of justice that's admired around the world but it does have its slowness and requires due process that you have a full and fair trial and appeals. and those things they take time. florida has 400 people on death row. every one of those cases has to go through the florida supreme court, and that takes time. then it has to go through federal court because of the other issues. i think we could say let's dispense with our constitution. why have these lawyers and appeals but we would be throwing out the baby with the bath water. i don't know that our death

penalty fits well within the rest of our constitutional system, which requires equal justice under law. due process. the unalienable right to life in the declaration of independence. these things push against the death penalty. and if we're going to have it, at least it -- we have to be very, very careful. host: he did a poll and showed 60% of respondents were in favor of it. 35% of respondents opposed it. but those in favor that, number dropped from 80% in 1987 92 and those who oppose it, that number rose in 1992 as well. guest: yes. this is the public weighing in. this year it was the lowest support for the death penalty in 2013 in 40 years.

it's still a majority that supported it. t that's the philosophical feeling. people in america aren't going to say the death penalty is morally wrong, but more and more think it should be abolished. then you get to the practical in the jury rooms they are also voting, for life without parole over the death penalty and when that's added to the mix, life without parole versus the death penalty. people see, ok, there's a better alternative and that gets the death penalty down -- w 50% in that gal foup in that group. host: eric from south carolina, good morning. on the democrats line. caller: yes, i'm calling in reference -- michael: you're going to have to -- stop with the television

and go ahead. caller: i have a lot of -- yeah. host: eric go ahead. you're on the phone. caller: saying the increase of murders whether it's gang-related or anything like that in south carolina, an increase of it, and i think it's a lot of bureaucracy going on and red tape going on. i feel like this -- if you kill somebody and murder someone, i don't think that you should have a choice, because the person who died or the person you killed didn't have a choice, and i feel like 15 years on death row is way too long from an economic stand point because corporate america pretty much runs the prison system, you got to keep jobs funded. i think probably even get a death tax break for funding prisons.

i think there's got to be some education at some point in the youth in our education to educate people, if you commit these crimes, these are the consequences. host: ok, thanks, caller. guest: yes. there has to be consequences and it's not up to the defendant. the defendant probably wouldn't choose the death penalty but they don't have the choice. it's we the public that chooses. here's the choice. one death penalty case is going to cost you the taxpayer $3 million. a life sentence would cost you about $1 million. so you've got $2 million to spend if you don't go for the death penalty. now, any of what $2 million can buy. it could put more police officers on the streets and put better schools. more prisons in place. it's extra money. you can either throw it at the death penalty and be like south carolina. they have not had an excution.

what are they getting for these billions of dollars? it's a practical question. people should face consequences for murder. but the question is should we save money and keep them in prison for life or pay lawyers who fight these cases for 15 years. >> up next from beaver damn, wisconsin. republican line. caller: yes. i had a question and i made a statement that i'm old enough to remember when this death penalty push was going on that there were multiple state murders people committing crime in multiple states and they fought really hard to stay out of the states to be convicted in states with the death penalty and went through the states that didn't have the death penalty. they were very -- and on my question for you is are you aware of anybody that's been executed that was sent in

guest: well, to your first point, there's just as many people that seem to go to death penalty states, you know, including gary gilmore and ted went to t people who florida and keart out their murders. -- went to florida and carried out their murders. the states that don't have the death penalty have less murders. so there is this question about innocence and then i would say we have evidence that some people were innocent who were executed. i would also say it's not 100% proof. once a case is over -- and you have been executed, the lawyers and courts move on. you don't get a retrial. so it's somewhat left up to our con crens cuss as a society. certainly people have been pardonned. people who have presented

evidence in court such as the evidence. he science evidence was wrong. there was science showing a man convicted of arson and there was a mistake. mistakes certainly have been made. a hard to prove 100% that person is innocent. you're still alive, you can prove your innocence but you're if -- but if you're dead, you can not. caller: they hide these executions behind walls. if they would put them out in the pub licks, people would think a lot different than going out and doing this stuff, i believe. thank you very much.

guest: again, states have the choice. we used to have executions in the public forum. we used to have hangings. kentucky, missouri, 1,000 people came to watch. people brought their childrens. they brought their picnic baskets. they sold tickets. but states decided that was not the message they wanted to convey. there was an old story about people being hung for pickpocketing in england and that was the time in which ickpockets worked the crowd. we think the death penalty is going to scare people. but i think it attracts people. people want that attention, that infamous glory, and some have even said they committed their crime because they wanted to get the death penalty. i would not say that's most of the people. but it has an attraction as well as a deterrent.

host: we talk about this on the state level. is there a federal level? guest: yes. and it applies to the state whether they like it or not and in the district of colombia and puerto rico. so have not had a federal far crime y used with interstate connections or some national security or federal level, although things like carjacking and interstate trafficking, you can get the death penalty. they are not national security issues. 59 people are on the federal death row. 3,000 are on the state's death row. so it's a small part but it is one that's one that can be used in massachusetts or a state that doesn't have the death penalty. host: rob from kansas joins us next. you're on our democrats line.

caller: good morning. my question is given the fact that among western nations that the u.s. executes more people and given the fact that more americans, we have a murder rate that is the highest among western nations. given the fact that we wage war from vietnam to iraq where more people die in those wars including soldiers, doesn't that make in your opinion, the u.s. a mohr barbaric nation among the western nations or you think that's just way we are? that's my question. our ll, i'm no expert on history of those issues, but i do think we are out of line with our trend in the human rights community on the death penalty and i think we're changing. i think we're actually going to be seen as part of that stream

of human rights developments that have gotten rid of apartheid and support women's rights or children's rights. the death penalty is going to be seen as part of that. and europe got rid of it in the 1980's and 1970's and the u.s. in the 2000's. yes, the death penalty exists in the u.s., but as i said, it's only existing in a small portion of the u.s. most of our country already finds it not relevant and doesn't use it. so the other issues i think go to broader history and our various freedoms, and i'm no expert nor am i going to critique all that. but the death penalty i think is a sore spot, and it's changing. host: republican line. caller: you know, i think the bar association, the attorneys, the unions are more at fault

for all this murder than any gun manufacturer. they play games in these courts for years and years and years and a lot of these criminals don't really care. they go do mas murder and all they are going to do is go to you get free meals and have to and let's these gang bangers out in compton, a couple weeks ago a guy drove by on a bicycle and shot a young girl for no reason. that's how much the value of life has gone down. if you start putting these guys up that deserve for these multiple murder charges and hang them out in front of people, i guarantee you that crime is going to go down, because they see the payment of that and quit feeding these guys for 20 years and no productivity of life, nothing. our value is off. we have no -- host: caller, thanks. guest: yes.

nobody should be shooting children or committing these terrible crimes. now what works? well, you could take a place like new york city. which had a high number of -- you know murder capital sometimes. a thousand murders a year without a single execution, they have lowered it down to, like, 300 or less a year. it's just incredible the drop in murders in the country's largest city, and they have gangs and all kinds of problems there. but murder is not one of them. per capita. it's quite phenomenal. they did it through community policing, through changes on a whole level of crimes. there are ways to reduce murders without the death penalty. and california is not -- you know, doesn't have to stay with the highest murder rate. change.an

host: what are you looking at for 2014? guest: well, i think we're going to see a continuing of low levels of executions. i don't think they go away completely, because 32 states have them. we're not going to have zero. as long as it's in the law we're going to see some use of it, but it's going to continue to be this low use then i think we will add a few more states. not 10 but perhaps delaware. so the number of states without the death penalty is slowly reaching a majority. other 25. at some point the courts may address this as an unusual punishment, but i think it's a state issue right now, and that's going to continue in 2014. host: richard dieter with the death penalty information center. check out the organization online for yourself and we thank you for your time. guest: thank you.

host: coming up on tomorrow's program we will be joined by anna from move on.org part of the civil action to talk about the civic november. 2014. consecutives take a look at not only the activity in congress but that conversation will be at 8:30 then james jones, the member of the lyndon obtains johnson foundation and member of the white house will talk about the 50th anniversary of the war on poverty. that conversation starts at 9:15, program starts tomorrow at 7:00 a.m., we'll see you then. into [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> today, the university of --on state of the party parties conference. then, the history and future of the tea party and its impact on the republican party. later, the future of television news with the president of abc news. >> the deadline is approaching for the studentcam video competition. what is the most important issue congress should address this year? create a documentary with c-span programming. there is $100,000 in total prize money. the entries are due by january 20.